SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(AP) 428

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
S. Afzal Basha, S/o. Late Hakeem Md. Hasim - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principle Secretary, Dept. of Co-op. Societies & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 40370 & 40450 of 2018
Decided On : 23-03-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri S.A. Razak.
For the Respondents: Learned GP for Cooperation and Smt. M. Siva Jyothi.

A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against a co-operative society if it is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution or if it has a statutory public duty to follow its bye-laws. The suspension of an employee of a co-operative society without giving him sufficient time to submit an explanation is arbitrary and illegal.

Headnote:

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - SUSPENSION OF EMPLOYEE - PROCEDURE - ARBITRARINESS - WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - MAINTAINABILITY - SUSPENSION OF PETITIONER WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT TIME TO SUBMIT EXPLANATION - SUSTAINABILITY.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, an employee of Respondent No.2 Society, was appointed as CEO. The Society issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner pointing out irregularities and directing him to submit an explanation within three days. The petitioner requested four more days to submit the explanation, but the Society suspended him without giving him an opportunity to do so. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the suspension.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the writ petition was maintainable as the Society was a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and had a statutory public duty to follow its bye-laws. The court also held that the Society's action in suspending the petitioner without giving him sufficient time to submit an explanation was arbitrary and illegal.

Issues: 1. Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against Respondent No.2-Society? 2. Whether suspension of petitioner without giving sufficient time to submit explanation is sustainable?

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgments in Konaseema Co-operative Central Bank Limited case and Sadhu Varahala Babu and others vs. Government of A.P. Co-operation Department and others to hold that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against a co-operative society if it is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution or if it has a statutory public duty to follow its bye-laws. The court also held that the Society's action in suspending the petitioner without giving him sufficient time to submit an explanation was arbitrary and illegal as it violated the procedure contemplated under Section 59 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act and the bye-laws of the Society.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the Society's order suspending the petitioner. The court also directed the Society to follow the procedure according to law in dealing with the petitioner's suspension.

ORDER :

Since, the subject matter of these two writ petitions, is interrelated and interconnected these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.

2. Writ Petition No.40370 of 2018 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

“to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the 4th Respondent in issuing impugned proceedings dated 26.10.2018 based on the resolution of the 2nd respondent dated 23.10.2018 which is arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice, without any notice and without there being any authority of law and consequently set aside the Board Resolution No.NIL dated 30.10.2018 passed by the 2nd Respondent and also declare that the Petitioner is entitled to continue as CEO/MD in the 2nd respondent Society and to pass such other order or orders…”

3. Writ Petition No.40450 of 2018 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

“to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the 2nd Respondent in issuing impugned proceedings in Rc.No.01/2018-19 dated 06.11.2018 without conducting enquiry which is arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice and without there being any authority of law and consequently set aside the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.01/2018-19 dated 06.11.2018 passed by the 2nd Respondent and to pass such other order or orders ….”.

4. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is:

(a) Petitioner was appointed as clerk-cum-cashier in Respondent No.2 Society in the year 1990 through regular process of appointment. Petitioner was promoted as Field Inspector in the Society through proceedings in Ref.245/CRD/GEN/RO-KPD/2017, dated 11.05.2017. By resolution dated 01.09.2017, petitioner was appointed as CEO of Respondent No.2 Society. Respondent No.2 Society is registered under the Co-operative Societies Act and was affiliated to Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank and presently the Society is affiliated to District Cooperative Central Bank, Kadapa. Petitioner pointed out defects and informed the same to the Divisional Co-operative Officer on 08.08.2018. In turn, the Divisional Co-operative Officer, Kadapa issued letter to submit all the information and report compliance on the rectification of defects pointed out through his letter dated 01.09.2018. Since the petitioner made complaint, the President and other Board of Directors of Respondent No.2 by conducting Board meeting on 10.10.2018 and are making allegations against the petitioner and infact, passed unanimous resolutions.

(a) The President of the Society by letter dated 11.10.2018 communicated resolution dated 10.10.2018 to the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Kadapa. The Divisional Co-operative Officer, Kadapa in its letter dated 12.10.2018, directed the Sub Divisional Co-operative Officer, Kadapa to submit a report on the resignations of Managing Committee members. Though the President and other Board of Directors rendered the resignations they are conducting meetings and passing resolutions. By resolution dated 30.10.2018, it was resolved to appoint one M.V. Kishore Kumar, as CEO of Respondent No.2 Society by removing the petitioner. The said resolution was communicated to the Divisional Co-operative Officer, who, in turn, by letter RC.No.2716/2017-C dated 26.10.2018 advised the President of Managing Committee and Members of Respondent No.2 Society to proceed in the best interest of the Society as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act and Rules, 1964 (for short ‘APCS Act & Rules’).

(b) Challenging RC.No.2716/2017-C, Writ Petition No. 40370 of 2018 is filed. Pending W.P.No.40370 of 2018, petitioner was served with show-cause notice dated 03.11.2018. In the show-cause notice, some irregularities were pointed out and petitioner was directed to submit his explanation within a period

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top